Jeetu @ Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1130 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jeetu @ Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2025

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13625




                                                              1                            MCRC-27224-2025
                               IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                          BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
                                                    ON THE 4 th OF JULY, 2025
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27224 of 2025
                                                     JEETU @ JITENDRA
                                                           Versus
                                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          Appearance:
                                Shri Mayank Bajpai - Advocate for the applicant.
                                Ms.Ekta Vyas - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

                                                                  ORDER

This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant who apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.189/2025 registered at Police Station Khaniadhana, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for the commission of offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.

2 . The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 27.04.2025, while patrolling, the police received information from an informant that a white Bolero car carrying liquor was on its way. Subsequently, the police intercepted the

vehicle and recovered 108 liters of liquor from the possession of present applicant. Accordingly, the offence has been registered.

3. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act is not made out against the applicant, as there is no legally admissible evidence available against him with the prosecution. The seized liquor does not belong to the present

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13625

2 MCRC-27224-2025 applicant either directly or indirectly. No liquor has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, but he has been arrayed as an accused. In support of his contention, the counsel for the applicant relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Naresh Kumar Lahria vs. State of M.P. & Ors, reported in 2004(4) MPHT 205 , to contend that the bar contained under Section 59 of the M.P. Excise Act against grant of anticipatory bail would not be applicable on him and he further relies upon the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.26907/2022 and order dated 6.8.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.37483/2021. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the investigation in the matter is still incomplete. The

present applicant is fled away from the spot wherein, liquor that was being transported in the car and the prosecution is in the process of collecting further evidence as regard the role of the applicant in the offence in question and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that there is no other legally admissible evidence available against the applicant, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary available on record.

6. The validity of Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act against the grant of anticipatory bail has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case o f Naresh Kumar Lahria (supra) . However, the Court in para 24 of the said judgment held that despite the aforesaid provision, the applicant can putforth his case and if there is no material at all to make out the case under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and in the rare cases the power can be exercised for

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13625

3 MCRC-27224-2025

grant of anticipatory bail. Admittedly, in the instant case, the investigation is still going on. The present case do not fall within the realm of rare cases. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the present applicant is not involved in the offence in question and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the present application stands rejected.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the sentence prescribed for offence in question is upto seven years, therefore, procedure as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , would be applicable.

8. In view of the above, while dismissing the instant anticipatory bail application, it is observed that the Investigating Authority may comply with the provisions of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. as laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

(AMIT SETH) JUDGE

Adnan